IA 2016-10 Redacted

CONFIDENTIAL
ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT
SECTION 1
Table of Contents
INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION

2016-10
CONFIDENTIAL
IA # 2016-10

PERSONNEL COMPLAINT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
• Table Of Contents
Section 2:
• Memorandum of assignment to conduct an administrative review of 16-1662
Section 3:
• Investigative Narrative
Section 4:
• Exhibits
o APD Police Report #16- 1662
o Taser, 40mm training record 12-12-14
o Range records for 3 range training dates
o Copy of Use of Force document
o CAD Event Detail from 7-4-16 at 1306 hours
o APD Lexipol sections
300
309
310
312
315
o Letter from the District Attorney s Office Dated 11-4-16
o Video recordings from incident, memorialized on a disc
CONFIDENTIAL
SECTION 2
Memorandum of assignment to
conduct an administrative review of
-
case #16 1662

-
2016 10
CONFIDENTIAL
'
TL .
CITY OF ATASCADERO
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Dedicated to Professional Service "
IMS l»7B
BOO
I SCADE o
Jerel Haley
Chief of Police
TO: Commander Joe Allen
FROM: Chief of Police Jerel Haley
SUBJECT: Shooting Use of Force Review
DATE: October 20, 2016
I have reviewed the use of force analysis form from case 16-1662 in which our department used
deadly force against the suspect. Pursuant to Atascadero Police Department Policy, this incident is
being referred to you for and Administrative Investigation. Upon conclusion of the District
Attorney s Office investigation into this matter, you are directed to complete an internal departmental
investigation to determine if the use of force was appropriate and within department guidelines.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. The Administrative Investigation number for
this incident is 16-10.
Page 1 of 1
CONFIDENTIAL
SECTION 3
Investigative Narrative

2016-10
CONFIDENTIAL
IA # 2016-10

ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION
INVESTIGATION NARRATIVE
1 INTRODUCTON
2
3 On October 20, 2016, Chief Haley directed me to complete an internal administrative investigation
4 into the July 4lh, 2016 shooting and use of force incident, reference APD Case # 16-1662 . This
5 investigation is taking place after the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney s Office found
6 that there was no criminal culpability on the part of Sergeant Meyer. Additionally, their
7 investigation revealed that Sergeant Meyer’ s actions were reasonable and justified. This
8 investigation will also review the other use of force incidents that occurred before lethal force was
9 used .
10
11
12 SYNOPSIS
13
14 On July 4th, 2016, at approximately 1306 hours, APD dispatch received numerous 911 calls
15 reporting a subject who had driven his vehicle through a building and who was now armed with
16 weapons. It was unknown as to what had caused the suspect’ s behavior, but he was described by
17 a caller as, acting crazy.
18
19 Officers responded and saw the suspect was armed with several objects, (a painter’s pole, large
20 metal flashlight and a crow bar). Officers engaged the suspect and attempted to have him drop his
21 weapons. The suspect advanced toward the officers in a threatening manner. The officers
22 continually told him to drop his weapons. The officers deployed a Taser device against the suspect,
23 but was ineffective. A 40mm impact weapon was also deployed and proved to be ineffective.
24
25 At that point the suspect literally began to chase the officers around their police vehicles while
26 armed with three deadly weapons. The suspect struck a police unit with one of the weapons. As
27 officers retreated from the suspect, he was swinging a pole at an officer. Simultaneously, a Taser
28 was deployed and a 40 caliber handgun round was fired, striking the suspect. The impact of the
29 handgun round and the Taser were effective in temporarily disabling the suspect .
30
31 The suspect was taken into custody without further incident. Medical aid was summoned
32 immediately. The suspect was treated at the scene and transported via ambulance to Sierra Vista
33 Hospital. He was booked at the hospital, treated for his non-life threatening injuries, and ultimately
34 transferred to the Jail.
35
36 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
37
38 This case has been reviewed several times over the course of the past 5 months. In review of the
39 incident, no policy violations were observed. Therefore, this is an administrative review of the
40 incident .
41
Page | 1
IA # 2016-10

1 It was learned later in the investigation that the suspect in this case was
2 Additionally, the
3 suspect s toxicology test revealed that he was under the influence of Baclofen, a muscle relaxant
4 and a central nervous system depressant. He was also under the influence of methamphetamine,
5 a central nervous system stimulant.
6
7
8 INVOLVED PARTIES:
9
10 Officer Diego Segovia Initial responder
11
12 Corporal Scott Pipan Initial responder
13
14 Sergeant Gregg Meyer Initial responder
15
16 Sergeant Jason Can- Investigator
17
18 Detective Kellye Netz Investigator
19
20 Detective Nick Coughlin Investigator
21
22 Senior Property Evidence Specialist Ryan Enfantino CSI
23
24 Officer Andrew Lucas Assisting Officer
25
26 Chief Jerel Haley Assisting Administrator
27
28 Commander Joe Allen Assisting Administrator
29
30 Sergeant Matt Chesson Investigator
31
32
33 SUMMARY
34
35 This summary is based on witness accounts of the incident, a report review, viewing the several
36 different video recordings, and the agency debriefing.
37
38 Atascadero police department members have taken part in the OIS debriefing regarding this
39 incident. Part of that process was a review of our department procedures, policies and an
40 equipment review.
41
Page | 2
IA # 2016-10

1
2
3
4
5 .
6 -
7
8
9
10 -
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 .
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Page | 3
IA # 2016-10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 .
27 .
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Page | 4
IA # 2016-10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 .
8 .
9
10
11 .
12
13 I then conducted a post incident review of our departmental policies.
14
15 POLICY REVIEW:
16
17 Policy 300.3 USE OF FORCE States:
18
19 Officers shall use only that amount of force that is reasonably necessary given the facts and
20 circumstances perceived by the officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law
21 enforcement purpose.
22
23 In this instance, Officer Segovia was justified in using his Taser to overcome the assault of
24 the suspect
25
26 In this instance, Corporal Pipan was justified in using his Taser to overcome the assault of
27 the suspect.
28
29 In this instance, Sergeant Meyer was justified in using the 40mm less lethal launcher to
30 overcome the assault of the suspect.
31
32 In this instance, Sergeant Meyer was justified in using his department issued handgun to
33 stop the assault of the suspect.
34
35 Policy 300.3.2 States:
36
37 FACTORS USED TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF FORCE
38
39 When determining whether to apply force and evaluating whether an officer has used reasonable
40 force, a number of factors should be taken into consideration, as time and circumstances permit.
41
Page | 5
IA # 2016-10

1 These factors include, but are not limited to:

2
3 (a) Immediacy and severity of the threat to officers or others.
4 (b) The conduct of the individual being confronted, as reasonably perceived by the officer at
5 the time.
6 (c) Officer/subject factors (age, size, relative strength, skill level, injuries sustained, level of
7 exhaustion or fatigue, the number of officers available vs. subjects).
8 (d) The effects of drugs or alcohol.
9 (e) Subject s mental state or capacity.
10 (f ) Proximity of weapons or dangerous improvised devices.
11 (g) The degree to which the subject has been effectively restrained and his/ her ability to resist
12 despite being restrained .
13 (h) The availability of other options and their possible effectiveness.
14 (i) Seriousness of the suspected offense or reason for contact with the individual.
15 (j) Training and experience of the officer.
16 (k) Potential for injury to officers, suspects and others.
17 (l) Whether the person appears to be resisting, attempting to evade arrest by flight or is
18 attacking the officer .
19 (m) The risk and reasonably foreseeable consequences of escape.
20 (n) The apparent need for immediate control of the subject or a prompt resolution of the
21 situation.
22 (o) Whether the conduct of the individual being confronted no longer reasonably appears to
23 pose an imminent threat to the officer or others.
24 (p) Prior contacts with the subject or awareness of any propensity for violence.
25 (q) Any other exigent circumstances.
26
27 In this event, the majority of these factors were present, further justifying the level of force
28 taken.
29
30 Policy 300.4 States:
31
32 DEADLY FORCE APPLICATIONS
33
34 Use of deadly force is justified in the following circumstances:
35
36 (a) An officer may use deadly force to protect him/herself or others from what he/she reasonably
37 believes would be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
38
39
40 In this instance, Sergeant Meyer was justified in using his department issued handgun to
41 stop the assault of the suspect.
Page | 6
IA # 2016-10

1
3
4 300.5 REPORTING THE USE OF FORCE
5
6 Any use of force by a member of this department shall be documented promptly, completely and
7 accurately in an appropriate report, depending on the nature of the incident. The officer should
8 articulate the factors perceived and why he/she believed the use of force was reasonable under
9 the circumstances. To collect data for purposes of training, resource allocation, analysis and
10 related purposes, the Department may require the completion of additional report forms, as
11 specified in department policy, procedure or law.
12
13 300.5.1 NOTIFICATION TO SUPERVISORS
14
15 Supervisory notification shall be made as soon as practicable following the application of force
16 in any of the following circumstances:
17
18 (a) The application caused a visible injury.
19 (b) The application would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the individual may have
20 experienced more than momentary discomfort.
21 (c) The individual subjected to the force complained of injury or continuing pain.
22 (d) The individual indicates intent to pursue litigation.
23 (e) Any application of a TASER device or control device.
24 (f ) Any application of a restraint device other than handcuffs, shackles or belly chains.
25 (g) The individual subjected to the force was rendered unconscious.
26 (h) An individual was struck or kicked.
27 (i) An individual alleges any of the above has occurred.
28
29 This policy was followed by all members who were involved in the event.
30
32
33 300.5.2 USE OF FORCE NOTIFICATIONS
34
35 Command Staff shall be notified of all Use Of Force incidents via the Chain of Command within
36 a reasonable time after the event. For purposes of this policy notification can be made via
37 telephone, email or written memorandum.
38
39
41
Page | 7
IA # 2016-10


2
3 MEDICAL CONSIDERATION
4
5 Prior to booking or release, medical assistance shall be obtained for any person who exhibits
6 signs of physical distress, who has sustained visible injury, expresses a complaint of injury or
7 continuing pain, or who was rendered unconscious. Any individual exhibiting signs of physical
8 distress after an encounter should be continuously monitored until he/she can be medically
9 assessed.
10
11 Based upon the officer s initial assessment of the nature and extent of the subject s injuries,
12 medical assistance may consist of examination by fire personnel, paramedics, hospital staff or
13 medical staff at the jail. If any such individual refuses medical attention, such a refusal shall be
14 fully documented in related reports and, whenever practicable, should be witnessed by another
15 officer and/or medical personnel. If a recording is made of the contact or an interview with the
16 individual, any refusal should be included in the recording, if possible.
17
18 The on-scene supervisor or, if the on-scene supervisor is not available, the primary handling
19 officer shall ensure that any person providing medical care or receiving custody of a person
20 following any use of force is informed that the person was subjected to force. This notification
21 shall include a description of the force used and any other circumstances the officer reasonably
22 believes would be potential safety or medical risks to the subject (e.g., prolonged struggle,
23 extreme agitation, impaired respiration).
24
25 Persons who exhibit extreme agitation, violent irrational behavior accompanied by profuse
26 sweating, extraordinary strength beyond their physical characteristics and imperviousness t
27 (sometimes called excited delirium ), or who require a protracted physical encounter with
28 multiple officers to be brought under control, may be at an increased risk of sudden death. Calls
29 involving these persons should be considered medical emergencies. Officers who reasonably
30 suspect a medical emergency should request medical assistance as soon as practicable and have
31 medical personnel stage away if appropriate.
32
34
36
37 300.7 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITY
38
39 When a supervisor is able to respond to an incident in which there has been a reported
40 application of force, the supervisor is expected to:
41
Page | 8
IA # 2016-10

1 (a) Obtain the basic facts from the involved officers. Absent an allegation of misconduct or
2 excessive force, this will be considered a routine contact in the normal course of duties.
3 (b) Ensure that any injured parties are examined and treated .
4 (c) When possible, separately obtain a recorded interview with the subject upon whom force
5 was applied. If this interview is conducted without the person having voluntarily waived his/
6 her Miranda rights, the following shall apply:
7 1. The content of the interview should not be summarized or included in any related
8 criminal charges.
9 2. The fact that a recorded interview was conducted should be documented in a
10 property or other report.
11 3. The recording of the interview should be distinctly marked for retention until all
12 potential for civil litigation has expired.
13 (d) Once any initial medical assessment has been completed or first aid has been rendered,
14 ensure that photographs have been taken of any areas involving visible injury or complaint
15 of pain, as well as overall photographs of uninjured areas. These photographs should be
16 retained until all potential for civil litigation has expired.
17 (e) Identify any witnesses not already included in related reports.
18 (f) Review and approve all related reports.
19 (g) Determine if there is any indication that the subject may pursue civil litigation.
20 1. If there is an indication of potential civil litigation, the supervisor should complete and
21 route a notification of a potential claim through the appropriate channels.
22 (h) Evaluate the circumstances surrounding the incident and initiate an administrative
23 investigation if there is a question of policy non-compliance or if for any reason further
24 investigation may be appropriate.
25
26 In the event that a supervisor is unable to respond to the scene of an incident involving the
27 reported application of force, the supervisor is still expected to complete as many of the above
28 items as circumstances permit
29
30 This policy was followed by the supervisors that were involved in the event.
31
33
34 300.8 TRAINING
35
36 Officers will receive periodic training on this policy and demonstrate their knowledge and
37 understanding.
38
39 I have talked to APD supervisors and was assured that this policy is periodically reviewed.
40
Page | 9
IA # 2016-10

1
2 308.8. 1 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS USE OF IMPACT MUNITIONS
3 Upon use of a departmentally approved Kinetic Energy Projectile the officer shall retrieve the
4 expended munitions cartridge and book it into evidence under the case number documenting that
5 incident.
6
7
8 This policy was followed by Sergeant Carr as he directed the retrieval of the evidence at the
9 scene.
10
11 Policies 308.9, 308.9.1, and 308.9.2 State:
12
13 308.9 KINETIC ENERGY PROJECTILE GUIDELINES
14
15 This department is committed to reducing the potential for violent confrontations. Kinetic energy
16 projectiles, when used properly, are less likely to result in death or serious physical injury and
17 can be used in an attempt to de-escalate a potentially deadly situation.
18
19 308.9. 1 DEPLOYMENT AND USE
20
21
22
-
Only department approved kinetic energy munitions shall be carried and deployed. Approved
munitions may be used to compel an individual to cease his/her actions when such munitions
23 present a reasonable option.
24
25 Officers are not required or compelled to use approved munitions in lieu of other reasonable
26 tactics if the involved officer determines that deployment of these munitions cannot be done
27 safely. The safety of hostages, innocent persons and officers takes priority over the safety of
28 subjects engaged in criminal or suicidal behavior.
29
30 Circumstances appropriate for deployment include, but are not limited to, situations in which :
31 (a) The suspect is armed with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe
32 application of approved munitions.
33 (b) The suspect has made credible threats to harm him/herself or others.
34 (c) The suspect is engaged in riotous behavior or is throwing rocks, bottles or other dangerous
35 projectiles at people and/or officers.
36 (d) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has already committed a crime of
37 violence and is refusing to comply with lawful orders.
38
39 308.9.2 DEPLOYMENT CONSIDERATIONS
40
41 Before discharging projectiles, the officer should consider such factors as:
Page | 10
IA # 2016-10

1
2 (a) Distance and angle to target .
3 (b) Type of munitions employed.
4 (c) Type and thickness of subject s clothing.
5 (d) The subject’ s proximity to others.
6 (e) The location of the subject.
7 (f ) Whether the subject’ s actions dictate the need for an immediate response and the use of
8 control devices appears appropriate.
9
10 A verbal warning of the intended use of the device should precede its application, unless it would
11 otherwise endanger the safety of officers or when it is not practicable due to the circumstances.
12 The purpose of the warning is to give the individual a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily
13 comply and to warn other officers and individuals that the device is being deployed.
14
15 Officers should keep in mind the manufacturer’ s recommendations and their training regarding
16 effective distances and target areas. However, officers are not restricted solely to use according
17 to manufacturer recommendations. Each situation must be evaluated on the totality of
18 circumstances at the time of deployment.
19
20 The need to immediately incapacitate the subject must be weighed against the risk of causing
21 serious injury or death. The head and neck should not be intentionally targeted, except when the
22 officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death
23 to the officer or others.
24
25 In this instance, Sergeant Meyer was justified in using his department issued 40mm
26 Kinetic Energy Projectile Launching weapon to stop the assault of the suspect.
27
29
30 308.10 TRAINING FOR CONTROL DEVICES
31
32 The Training Sergeant shall ensure that all personnel who are authorized to carry a control
33 device have been properly trained and certified to carry the specific control device and are
34 retrained or recertified as necessary.
35
36 (a) Proficiency training shall be monitored and documented by a certified, control-device
37 weapons or tactics instructor.
38 (b) All training and proficiency for control devices will be documented in the officer’ s training
39 file.
40 (c) Officers who fail to demonstrate proficiency with the control device or knowledge of this
41 agency’ s Use of Force Policy will be provided remedial training. If an officer cannot
Page | 11
IA # 2016-10

1 demonstrate proficiency with a control device or knowledge of this agency s Use of Force
2 Policy after remedial training, the officer will be restricted from carrying the control device
3 and may be subject to discipline.
4
5 Sergeant Meyer has been properly trained in the use of this weapon.
6
8
9 308.11 REPORTING USE OF CONTROL DEVICES AND TECHNIQUES
10
11 Any application of a control device or technique listed in this policy shall be documented in the
12 related incident report and reported pursuant to the Use of Force Policy.
13
14 This policy was followed by all members involved in the incident.
15
16 Policy 309 refers to department owned Tasers: issuance, deployment, use, documentation,
17 medical treatment, supervisor responsibilities and training for these devices.
18
19 Officer Segovia and Corporal Pipan were justified in deploying these devices, they were
20 properly trained and the use of the device was documented. The suspect received
21 immediate medical treatment. Their use was properly documented in the crime report and
22 the department s use of force form.
23
24 Policy 310 relates to Officer Involved Shootings and Deaths determines how these investigations
25 are handled.
26
27 I reviewed the entire policy 310.1 determined that all department policies were followed as
28 they relate to this incident.
29
30 Policy 312 refers to department firearms.
31
32 Sergeant Meyer was in possession of his department issued handgun, Glock Model 22. The
33 ammunition in his weapon was of the approved type. He has been trained according to
34 department policy. Per this policy, he made immediate notification as required by this
35 policy.
36
37 Policy 315 refers to Rules of Conduct
38
39 Canons One through Nine
40
Page | 12
IA # 2016-10

1 Relating to this use of force incident, and in review of all Canons, it is my opinion that all
2 involved employees were in compliance with the rules of conduct.
3
4 CONCLUSION
5
6 After careful examination of the Atascadero Police department s Lexipol policies, a review of
7 the reports, videos and training records, it is my opinion that no Atascadero policies or
8 procedures were violated. All involved employees acted in accordance with their training,
9 experience, and with due regard to our current policy.
10
11 In reviewing the range records, the records indicate that Sergeant Meyer only attended one out
12 of three range sessions prior to the incident. However, I was assured by the Range Sergeant
13 Molle that Sergeant Meyer did in fact attend the December 11th range training. He did not sign
14 the range sign in sheet.
15
16 During the debriefing process, there were some training topics brought forward and there have
17 been positive changes made to the training program.
18
19 EXHIBITS
20
21 1. APD police report 16-1662, with supplemental reports through #15
22 2. Taser, 40mm training record from 12-12-14
23 3. Range records for three range sessions prior to the day of the event.
24 4. Copy of the Use of Force report.
25 5. Cad Event Detail from July 4th, 2016 at 1306 hrs.
26 6. APD Lexipol Manual Policies: 300, 309, 310, 312, and 315
27 7. Letter from the District Attorney s Office dated November 4, 2016
28 8. Video recordings of the event, In car, body camera and citizen video images.
Page | 13
CONFIDENTIAL
SECTION 5
Conclusion

2016-10
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
To: Chief Jerel Haley
From: Lieutenant Jason Carr
Subject: Internal Affairs Investigation 2016-10.
Date: 10-8-18
On 10/8/18 1 received the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney's Officer Involved
Shooting Investigation and Findings final report for Atascadero Police Department case
number 16-1662 completed by Chief Deputy District Attorney Jerret Gran.
I reviewed Mr. Gran' s report which was compiled from APD's incident report, District
Attorney Investigative Reports, Sierra Vista Medical Center reports, Central Valley
Toxicology Reports and various citizen videos.
In summary Mr. Gran wrote, Gary Reynolds was not only armed with four deadly
weapons, he was brandishing them in a manner that would likely inflict death or great
bodily injury to Officer Segovia or Sergeant Meyer. Mr. Reynolds ignored repeated
commands to drop his weapons and get on the ground. Three attempts of less lethal
means were not successful. In fact, the Tasers and 40mm projectile launcher had little to
no effect at all. Gary Reynolds acted aggressively and pursued Sergeant Meyer swinging
his metal pole at him forcing Sergeant Meyer to make a split-second decision to fire his
weapon at Mr. Reynolds.
In closing Mr. Gran stated that Sergeant Gregg Meyer acted reasonably and lawfully in
self-defense, and in defense of others, when he used deadly force under rapidly
unfolding circumstances. Mr. Gran further states "this office will take no further action
in reference to the investigation into this matter.
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DAN DOW ERIC J. DOBROTH
District Attorney ASSISTANT District Attorney
JERRETC. GRAN
uty District Attorney
Chief Deputy
October 4, 2018 SHERYL M. WOLCOTT
CHIEF Deputy District Attorney
WILLIAM M. HANLEY
Jerel Haley CHIEF, Bureau of Investigation
Chief of Police
Atascadero Police Department
5505 El Camino Real
Atascadero, California 93422
Re: Officer Involved Shooting Investigation and Findings
Atascadero Case No.: 161662

Injured Person: Gary Rodger Reynolds
Date of Incident: July 4, 2016
Location: 5600 block of El Camino Real, Atascadero, California
Involved Officers: Officer Diego Segovia, Sgt Gregg Meyer, Corporal Scott Pipan
Date Investigation commenced by the Office of the District Attorney: July 4, 2016
Dear Chief Haley:
The District Attorney s Office has completed its independent investigation and review of the
above referenced officer involved shooting. Our review does not address issues of civil liability,
tactics, or departmental policies or procedures. We address only the question of whether the
involved officers’ use of deadly force in the shooting of Mr. Reynolds was lawful or unlawful
under the facts of this incident. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the evidence in
this case requires a finding that the use of deadly force by Atascadero Police Department
Sergeant Greg Meyer was lawful under the law, and therefore no further action will be taken by
the District Attorney’ s Office.
Written reports, videos, and photographs were reviewed. They consisted of:
• Atascadero Police Report Number 161662 and supplements
• District Attorney Investigative Reports
• Sierra Vista Hospital Medical Reports
• Central Valley Toxicology Results
• Various citizen videos
GARY REYNOLDS
Gary Reynolds, bom on October 22, 1957, was approximately 6 feet tall and weighed
approximately 190 pounds. He was 58 years of age on July 4, 2016.
1035 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo • CA 93408 • http://slocounty.ca.gov/DA (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
October 4, 2018
Report to Jerel Haley, Chief of Police, Atascadero Police Department
Atascadero Police Department Case No.: 161662
Page 2
CRIMINAL HISTORY
Gary Reynold’ s criminal history includes the following convictions:
Date: Statute: Jurisdiction:

12/12/84 PC 270 (failure to provide child support) Santa Ana
03/30/95 PC 148(a) (resisting arrest); Westminster
HS 11550(a) (under influence of controlled substance)
07/14/95 PC 242 (battery) Westminster
01/10/97 HS 11377(a) (possess a controlled substance) Santa Ana
08/16/10 VC 23152(a) (driving under the influence); Westminster
VC 14601.1(a) (driving with a suspended license)
02/05/18 VC 23152(e) (driving under the influence) San Luis Obispo
THE SHOOTING - JULY 4, 2016
On July 4th, 2016 at approximately 1:00 p.m. Atascadero Police Department received multiple
911 calls regarding a white truck colliding into a building approximately one block from their
department. After crashing into the building, the truck reversed across multiple traffic lanes and
hit a parked car, then proceeded to crash into the same building a second time before getting
stuck while trying to reverse.
Officer Diego Segovia, Sergeant Gregg Meyer and Corporal Scott Pipan responded to the scene
in separate marked police department cars. All three were in uniform.
Officer Segovia was the first to contact Gary Reynolds, the driver of the white truck. He had a
long metal pole in his right hand and a flat bar, crowbar and a metal flashlight in his left hand.
Mr. Reynolds ignored commands to drop his weapons and instead came at Officer Segovia while
waving the metal pole. Mr. Reynolds stuck the hood and left a dent on Sergeant Meyer s SUV
as he advanced toward Officer Segovia. He chased after Officer Segovia who retreated and used
his Taser to try to control Mr. Reynolds. Both the probes hit him in his upper body and Officer
Segovia activated his Taser. Mr. Reynolds did stop his advancement for a moment but did not
drop his weapons. As he moved the Taser probes were still attached to his upper body and it
caused the Taser to be removed from Officer Segovia’s hands.
Sergeant Meyer used a less lethal 40 mm projectile launcher and struck the Mr. Reynolds in the
thigh area. Mr. Reynolds did not comply with commands or drop his weapons. As he advanced
toward Sergeant Meyer, Corporal Pipan used his Taser on Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds
continued to advance toward Sergeant Meyer and swung the metal pole in an aggressive manner
toward Sergeant Meyer. He lost control of the metal pole and it hit the ground near Sergeant
Meyer. Mr. Reynolds still had the crowbar and metal flashlight in his left hand and was less than
10 feet from Sergeant Meyer. Almost immediately after the metal pole hit the ground, Sergeant
Meyer shot his handgun one time and hit Mr. Reynolds in the abdomen area and he fell to the
ground.
1035 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93408 http://slocounty.ca.gov/DA (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
• •
October 4, 2018
Page 3
Sergeant Meyer was interviewed and felt his life and the lives of his fellow officers were in
jeopardy. Gary Reynolds was interviewed and admitted he had used methamphetamine and had
suffered a psychotic break and thought he was under attack and going to be set on fire.
TIMELINE / IMAGES
1:07:43 Officer Segovia arrives on scene in car

1:07:44 Sergeant Meyer arrives on scene in car
m
A
1:07:46 Officer Segovia gets out of car; Contacts Gary Reynolds

Gary Reynolds refuses order to drop weapons; Gary Reynolds seen swinging pole;
1035 Palm Street San Luis Obispo • CA 93408 http://slocounty .ca.gov/DA (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
October 4, 2018
Page 4
1:07:56 Gary Reynolds strikes hood of Sergeant Meyer s hood with pole
1:07:57 Gary Reynolds starts to chase Officer Segovia with pole raised in an aggressive
manner
ATP®
%
nt
1035 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93408 http://slocounty.ca.gov/ DA • (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
October 4, 2018
Page 5
1:07:59 Officer Segovia deploys his Taser
ATPD
3 < M
1
1
Si
1
1:08:04 Sergeant Meyer uses 40mm projectile launcher

Gary Reynolds moves towards front of vehicles;
v.
1035 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93408 http://slocounty.ca.gov/DA • (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
October 4, 2018
Page 6
1:08:20 Gary Reynolds runs around the driver s side of Sergeant Meyer’ s car
4
*04
1:08:26 Gary Reynolds runs toward Sergeant Meyer on driver’ s side of Sergeant Meyer’ s car;
Refuses to drop weapons or get on the ground; Swings/throws pipe in an aggressive
manner towards Sergeant Meyer;
1035 Palm Street San Luis Obispo • CA 93408 • http://slocounty.ca.gov/DA • (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
October 4, 2018
Page 7
1:08:28 Corporal Pipan deploys his Taser
1:08:29 Gary Reynolds is shot by Sergeant Meyer; Gary Reynolds drops flashlight and second
Crowbar
I
1035 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo CA 93408 • http://slocounty.ca .gov/ DA (805) 781 - 5800 • Fax (805) 781 - 4307
On
nto
,° S
QE
'v%/ e
y
/ <5
?ejV;
/
s°
§!
Building of 5680
1& Building of 5660
El Camino Real co o El Camino Real
> \ Building of 5670

El Camino Real
i
>
/
/
/
£
S
mm rv - 1 1
T* J
%
,7 J
/
/
J / £ 4 /
/ / //
mm
s
£
fa
?
7
S
4 9
* jP
%%
%WO •
Gj o
3% .
oc f//?/.
° yca9
oWO/\
<%
Pa.V
% <9;
October 4, 2018
Page 9
COLLISION
l
*
PH
•»
RKEV
1035 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93408 http://slocounty.ca.gov/ DA (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
October 4, 2018
Page 10
WEAPONS
3 V
i ..
1035 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93408 http://slocounty.ca.gov/DA • (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
October 4, 2018
Page 11
/
*
*
1035 Palm Street San Luis Obispo • CA 93408 • http://slocounty.ca .gov/ DA (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
October 4, 2018
Page 12
CRIMINAL CASE - SAN LUIS OBISPO SUPERIOR COURT 16F-0643
Gary Reynolds was charged in San Luis Obispo Superior Court with the following crimes:
1. Penal Code 245(c) Victim Sergeant Gregg Meyer

2. Penal Code 69 Victim Sergeant Gregg Meyer
3. Penal Code 245(c) Victim Officer Diego Segovia
4. Penal Code 69 Victim Officer Diego Segovia
5. Penal Code 245(c) Victim Officer Scott Pipan
6. Penal Code 69 Victim Officer Scott Pipan
7. Penal Code 594(b)(1) Victim Digital Marketing Zone
8. Penal Code 594(b)(1) Victim Victor Alvarez
9. Penal Code 594(b)(2)(a) Victim City of Atascadero
On February 5, 2018, Mr. Reynolds entered a plea and was convicted of counts 1 (serious
felony/strike), 4, 5 (serious felony/strike) and 7. He received a state prison sentence of 6 years 8
months.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Office of the District Attorney is charged with reviewing and analyzing all the evidence in a
shooting involving a peace officer, in order to determine whether the officer(s) acted lawfully.
The District Attorney s policy regarding crime charging is as follows:

The prosecutor should charge only if the following four basic requirements are satisfied:
1. The prosecutor, based on a complete investigation and a thorough consideration of all

pertinent facts readily available, is satisfied that the evidence proves that the accused is
guilty of the crime to be charged:
2. There is legally sufficient, admissible evidence of a corpus delicti;
3. There is legally sufficient, admissible evidence of the accused’ s identity as the
perpetrator of the crime charged; and
4. The prosecutor has considered the probability of conviction by an objective fact finder
and has determined that the admissible evidence is of such convincing force that it would
warrant conviction of the crime charged by a reasonable and objective fact finder after
hearing all the evidence available to the prosecutor at the time of the charging and after
considering the most plausible and reasonably foreseeable defenses.
If no criminal charges are filed based on the “ Officer Involved Shooting, the District Attorney
will issue a closing report summarizing the results of the investigation and analyzing the
evidence. This report will address the question of whether or not there is proof beyond a
reasonable doubt that an officer, deputy, or any other person committed a crime. It is not the
purpose of the District Attorney’ s investigation or report to determine if any officer or deputy
violated police policy or procedure, or committed any act that would be subject to civil
1035 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo • CA 93408 http: //slocounty .ca .gov/ DA (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
f
October 4, 2018
Page 13
sanctions. The District Attorney s Office will make every effort to issue a closing report
containing its findings and conclusion within 90 days of the receipt of the completed
investigation package. Criminal Justice Administrator s Association, San Luis Obispo County,
Officer Involved Incident Protocol , Reviewed January 1, 2017.
The law of justifiable homicide is found in Penal Code §§ 197-199, but is set forth in
understandable detail in Cal Crim Jury Instruction # 505.
The pertinent portion of Cal Crim 505 reads:
The defendant is not guilty of murder or manslaughter if he was justified in killing someone
in self-defense or defense of another. The defendant acted in lawful self-defense or defense of
another if:
1. The defendant reasonably believed that he or someone else was in imminent danger of
being killed or suffering great bodily injury;
2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary
to defend against that danger; and
3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that
danger.
The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to
himself or someone else. Defendant’ s belief must have been reasonable and he must have acted
only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a
reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation.
When deciding whether the defendant’ s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances
as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a
similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’ s beliefs were
reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.
A defendant is not required to retreat. He is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself. This
is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.
As can be seen, the use of force is governed by a basic rule: the use of force must have been
reasonably necessary under the circumstances. Case law is instructive when evaluating the
reasonableness of a peace officer’ s actions:
[A]n officer may reasonably use deadly force when he or she confronts an armed suspect in
close proximity whose actions indicate an intent to attack.
Brown v Roseweiler (2009)
171 Cal.App.4th 516, 528
1035 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93408 http://slocounty.ca .gov/ DA (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
October 4, 2018
Page 14
Police are not required to use the least intrusive means to control a subject who is armed with a
weapon such as a knife, bat, or as in this case, a pipe. “ [T]he inquiry is whether the force that
was used was reasonable, viewing the facts from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the
scene. Whether officers hypothetically could have used less painful, less injurious, or more
effective force in executing an arrest is simply not the issue.
Forrester v City of San Diego ("1994)
25 F.3d 804, 807-808
.. . The reasonableness of an officer s particular use of force must be judged from the
perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight...
Graham v Conner (1989)
490 U.S. 386, 396
“ .. . the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that public officers are
often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and
rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation...
Graham v Conner (1989)
Supra at 396-397
Applying these legal principles to this incident, it is important to note that the pipe, crowbars and
flashlight wielded by Gary Reynolds were deadly weapons.
A deadly weapon... is any object, instrument, or weapon that is inherently deadly, or one that is
used in such a way that it is capable of causing and likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
Cal Crim 875
Gary Reynolds was not only armed with four deadly weapons, he was brandishing them in a
manner that would likely inflict death or great bodily injury to Officer Segovia or Sergeant
Meyer. Mr. Reynolds ignored repeated commands to drop his weapons and get on the ground.
Three attempts of less lethal means were not successful. In fact, the tasers and 40mm projectile
launcher had little to no effect at all. Gary Reynolds acted aggressively and pursued Sergeant
Meyer swinging his metal pole at him forcing Sergeant Meyer to make a split-second decision to
fire his weapon at Mr. Reynolds.
1035 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93408 • http://slocounty.ca.gov/ DA (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
October 4, 2018
Page 15
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Sergeant Gregg Meyer acted reasonably and lawfully
in self-defense, and in defense of others, when he used deadly force under rapidly unfolding
circumstances against Gary Reynolds and this office will take no further action.
Very truly yours,
Dan Dow
District Att < ~ unty of San Luis Obispo
State of Cal
By: Jerret C. Gran

Chief Deputy District Attorney
Cc: Dan Dow, District Attorney

Eric J. Dobroth, Assistant District Attorney
William M. Hanley, D.A. Chief Investigator
1035 Palm Street San Luis Obispo • CA 93408 http://slocounty.ca.gov/ DA (805) 781 - 5800 Fax (805) 781 - 4307
IA # 2016-10
Administrative Review
TRACKING & DISPOSITION
Complainant: Name: Internal

Address:
Phone: H: W: C:
Incident Date: July 4, 2016 Time: 1300
Personnel Involved:
1. Sergeant Gregg Meyer 2. Corporal Scott Pipan
3. Officer Diego Segovia 4.
Date Filed with PD:
X Internal In Person By Phone By Mail
Employee Receiving Complaint:
Complaint Type: _X_ Non-Criminal Misdemeanor Felony
Date Receipt Letter Sent: DNA
Assigned to: Commander Joe Allen Date: October 20, 2016_
Date Due: July 4, 2017 f .
Date Reviewed by Chief: January 12, 20 F7H
DATE Completed: _January 12, 2017 \
Disposition:
Sustained
Unfounded
_X_ Exonerated
Not Sustained
Suspended
Date Conclusion Letter Sent to Complainant: DNA
Entered on Complaint Tracking Sheet:
Corrective Action: Several areas were identified to be addressed in training by the
Atascadero Police Department in the future. No corrective actions were taken related to the actual
incident.
Disciplinary Action:
None

IA 2016-10 Redacted

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

IA 2016-10 Redacted

Caricato da

Copyright:

CONFIDENTIAL

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION

TO: Commander Joe Allen

FROM: Chief of Police Jerel Haley

SUBJECT: Shooting Use of Force Review

DATE: October 20, 2016

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

1 These factors include, but are not limited to:

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

1 Policy 300.6 States:

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

ATASCADERO POLICE DEPARTMENT

INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION

To: Chief Jerel Haley

From: Lieutenant Jason Carr

Subject: Internal Affairs Investigation 2016-10.

Re: Officer Involved Shooting Investigation and Findings

Atascadero Case No.: 161662

Dear Chief Haley:

Gary Reynold’ s criminal history includes the following convictions:

Date: Statute: Jurisdiction:

THE SHOOTING - JULY 4, 2016

1:07:43 Officer Segovia arrives on scene in car

1:07:46 Officer Segovia gets out of car; Contacts Gary Reynolds

1:07:59 Officer Segovia deploys his Taser

1:08:04 Sergeant Meyer uses 40mm projectile launcher

1:08:28 Corporal Pipan deploys his Taser

> \ Building of 5670

CRIMINAL CASE - SAN LUIS OBISPO SUPERIOR COURT 16F-0643

1. Penal Code 245(c) Victim Sergeant Gregg Meyer

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The District Attorney s policy regarding crime charging is as follows:

1. The prosecutor, based on a complete investigation and a thorough consideration of all

The pertinent portion of Cal Crim 505 reads:

Very truly yours,

By: Jerret C. Gran

Cc: Dan Dow, District Attorney

TRACKING & DISPOSITION

Complainant: Name: Internal

Potrebbero piacerti anche